If that was the criteria for voting then fair enoughbut to say repeatedly there would be a vote and saying they wouldn't sign anything until the public were happy to do so and then go off and do it anyway is a fucking liberty.
At least thats the way I see it. I might have missed a trick some where.
(At least thats the way I see it. I might have missed a trick some where.
Lazlo Woodbine Panowie!,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:29,
archived)
The irony of you using the word liberty is that sentenceis not lost on me ;)
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:31,
archived)
Quite.I was going to change it but decided against it.
Almost like posting what could be seen as an anti-european post and using the words 'faux pas' in a reply.
:D
(Almost like posting what could be seen as an anti-european post and using the words 'faux pas' in a reply.
:D
Lazlo Woodbine Panowie!,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:34,
archived)
Well technically speaking the thing they promised the vote on and the thing they independently ratified aren't actually the same.But I see where you're coming from.
(
zoldergoose,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:31,
archived)
They promised a vote on the constitution.Fortunately, the French rejected that, which saved the UK population the indignity of making a national arse of itself.
The Treaty is different, and there's no reason at all to have a referendum on a treaty. There never has been before, so there's no precedent. And it's a precedent that no government would want to set - quite understandably and rightly, in my view.
(The Treaty is different, and there's no reason at all to have a referendum on a treaty. There never has been before, so there's no precedent. And it's a precedent that no government would want to set - quite understandably and rightly, in my view.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:33,
archived)